Mark Walsh? The radio comedian who was working as a freelance cameraman for Fox at the time? Someone makes a roughly correct assessment about the cause of the collapse, and it's all part of the conspiracy? A man in the financial district has a black suit - hence suspicious? Guy is too glib - hence suspicious? Guy in face mask is flustered when reporter asks him a question on live TV during 9/11 - hence suspicious? Maybe we'd better stick to the physical evidence.
What's a good word to generally describe your site, metabunk? I pick 'moribund'. You? Why do think it is 'moribund'? (add to that my difficulties in posting a single reply - is it just me?)
The one good thing is that any people passing through are getting to see some real argument around your somewhat anal attempt to back up any official story with your own brand of thick-skinned bloody-minded defence of what is indefensible. I think it's going to be pretty clear to anyone without a pre-conceived idea about the events of the day to see that there are some rather large holes in your version.
I've shown that evidence you hold up as valid (Purdue 'simulation' - they got that right!) is deeply flawed; that you present yourself as an expert in the construction of the towers when you really don't know the detail on how they were built and that you very obviously don't have any experience in this area whatsoever; that you can't tell the difference between a half-full fuel tank and a full one, even though it's in front of you; that you have misrepresented my views on many separate occasions; that you have not been truthful about which official reports you have read; that you think the incomplete NIST report is 'reasonable'....and now what?
If anyone actually watches this video, they can see that what I am saying about it is correct. It's very simple - just watch the video. Comments like:
A man in the financial district has a black suit - hence suspicious?
No, that in itself is obviously not suspicious, and it's not what I said, is it? Likewise the rest of Mick's 'response'.
Do correct me if I'm wrong - at the risk of pointing out that you made something up
again and you should retract it...I encourage anyone to watch the video, and it's obvious. What's obvious? It's obvious that what I'm saying is correct, and that what Mick is saying is called a 'straw man' argument. He likes those. Who and what are you defending Mick? Logic and Reason and 'the scientific method'? Course you are. What's in it for you? Truth or Faith? Or is this your job?
Anyone with an open mind would be at the least interested in this and what it apparently shows. Not 'Mick the sceptic' though. Why is that Mick? Maybe you need a new dictionary? Was yours written by SAIC?
Mick says:
Maybe we'd better stick to the physical evidence
which is almost funny.
What about the physically missing piece of physical evidence that NIST won't let anyone see (that is: the input data into their computer -
pfff, who needs it? says Mick, 'it's still reasonable'. Blimey!) because it 'might jeopardize public safety'?
The more you show, the more your position is taken apart. As a rather good English rugby player once said (and I concur): it's not the winning, it's the taking apart. Keep going pal.